PREHISTORIC CAVE ART FROM FLORIDA
Jan F. Simek, Alan Cressler, Jason M.
O'Donoughue, Sarah A. Blankenship, Allen
Mosler, and Matt Kalch
Alabama and Georgia to Kentucky (Simek and Cressler
2001). A few sites are known on the western side of the
Mississippi Valley (Boszhardt 2003; Diaz-Granados and
Duncan 2000) and three in Virginia and West Virginia
(Simek et al. 2000). No cave art sites were known below
the Fall Line on the Coastal Plain of the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2007, a group of avocational cavers exploring a
in 2007, a group ofavocational cavers sau> engravings on the small cave on private land near Florida Caverns State
walls of a cave in the eastern Florida Panhandle. They Park in Jackson County, Florida, saw fine engravings
contacted the Cave Archaeology Research Team from the on the walls and ceiling of the cave. They contacted
University of Tennessee, who visited the site and documented Alan Cressler, who visited the site and, based on what
eight petroglyphs on the walls of the cave. Given the subject he saw there, arranged for Jan Simek to come to Florida
matter of the petroglyphs, artifacts found on the floor, and from Tennessee to see the engravings. In September
the extent of weathering of the petroglifphs, it is likely that 2007, we visited the cave and documented the
these images are prehistoric, perhaps Late Woodland, in age. petroglyphs. We also saw artifacts from the cave,
This is the first instance of cave art south of the Fall Line and which we were allowed to show to Jason O'Donoughue
only the second example of prehistoric rock art in Florida.
(then at the University of Tennessee), who is familiar
with the prehistoric archaeology of northern Florida,
before returning the artifacts to the owners. Based on
the nature of the petroglyphs and their artifact
associations, we believe that the engravings represent
Introduction
prehistoric art, the first cave art documented in Florida
and only the second rock-art site of any kind
Prehistoric use of caves in the karst lands of discovered in the state. We designated this site 59th
southeastern North America has been a topic of great Unnamed Cave, according to a naming convention that
interest to science in general, and to archaeologists in we have used for many years (Simek et al. 1997).
particular, since the early nineteenth century, when
Prehistoric cave use in Florida has been known for
Pleistocene megafauna and mummified human burials
were discovered in deep Kentucky and Tennessee caves some time. Clarence Simpson and Charles Fairbanks
(Meloy 1984; Mercer 1897; Miller 1812). Over the nearly surveyed and excavated at various localities in Florida
two centuries since those discoveries, much exploration Caverns State Park near Marianna in northern Florida as
and analysis has been done, notably by Watson and her the Park was being developed in the 1940s (Fairbanks
colleagues in the 1960s in the Mammoth Cave region, 1941; Simpson 1941). Ripley Bullen also undertook
where, we would argue, modem American cave archaeological work in several caves around the same
archaeology was bom (Watson 1969, 1974). We now time (BuUen 1949). Florida caves, especially the deep
know of thousands of cave sites in the Southeast, some karst springs related to the Florida Aquifer, have yielded
witnessing prehistoric human activity many miles into a rich archaeological record extending back into the
the dark zone recesses of great karst systems (Simek Paleoindian period (Clausen et al. 1979). Archaic and
2008). Prehistoric people explored caves, used caves for later peoples also used Florida's caves wherever they
human burial and deposition into vertical shafts, mined were available (BuUen and Benson 1964). As in the
minerals, chert, and clay from deposits deep under- north, Florida caves were used for habitation (in the
ground, and undertook ceremonies of profound sacred entrance chambers), were explored to depth, may have
character in the darkness (Simek 1998; Watson 1986). Into been mined for clay and other minerals, and were places
the ceremonial category of cave use we place the now for human burial. The one aspect of Southeast cave use
numerous examples (more than 60) of prehistoric cave that was not known in Florida until now is cave art
art sites that have been documented in the Southeast production. Indeed, prehistoric rock art generally is very
over the past two decades (Simek and Cressler 2005). rare in Florida, in contrast to states farther to the north.
Until recently, nearly all of the known cave art sites were The only known example is a human face effigy on Stele
located in the limestone tablelands of the Appalachian 1 from the Crystal River Mound Site, which may be
Plateaus physiographic province (Figure 1), comprising Woodland in age (BuUen 1966). Thus the discovery of
the Cumberland Plateau, the Ridge and Valley Province, engravings in 59th Unnamed Cave is important from a
and the Highland Rim, and their equivalents from variety of perspectives.
78
FLORIDA CAVE ART
Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of known prehistoric
cave art sites in the Southeast before the discovery of 59th
Unnamed Cave in Florida.
The Geologic and Archaeological Context of
the Petroglyphs
59th Unnamed Cave is a small solution karst feature
formed in Marianna limestone. This sedimentary rock,
laterally equivalent to the Lower Suwannee limestone
in north-central Florida, is of Lower Oligocène age (ca
32-33 Mya). It is a light-colored, argillaceous marine
deposit that is quite fossil if erous, containing rich
foraininifera, mollusks, and rare vertebrates (Huddlestun 1993). This character will be seen easily in some of
the figures that accompany this article. Inside 59th
Unnamed Cave, the walls formed by karst processes
have loose and friable surfaces, and preservation of
engravings is, we believe, problematic.
A number of artifacts were recovered from the
surface of sediments in 59th Unnamed Cave, including
marine mollusk shells, a few lithics, and twenty-two
prehistoric ceramic sherds. The lithics are nondiagnostic debitage, but the ceramics do contain some
chronological information, and they merit a brief
description. All specimens have a con:ipact paste with
moderate to abundant amounts of very fine to medium
(1/16 to 1/2 mm) sand. Coarse sand and larger
subangular quartz inclusions are present in most
sherds, generally ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 mm. One
sherd, specimen 59-001, is unique in having abundant
subangular and angular quartz inclusions as large as
5 mm. Sherd thickness measures between 5 and
10 mm; for rim sherds, the thickness measurements
were taken 1 cm below the lip, and for all other sherds
we calculated an average of the maximum and
minimum values.
Surface treatment can be categorized generally as
check stamped (n = 10), plain (n = 4), or indeterminate/weathered (n = 8). Of the eight sherds catego-
Figure 2. Ceramic sherds from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida.
rized as indeterminate/weathered, three are possibly
check stamped. All of the decorated sherds exhibit
relatively fine check stamping (2-5 mm), which ranges
from square to rectangular in shape (Figure 2). On at
least two sherds the checks are oriented at a diagonal to
the orifice. One specimen, 59-009, exhibits check
stamping that has been smoothed over.
The sample includes five rim sherds, most of which
are direct or slightly inverted, folded, and thinned. Lip
morphology varies from flattened to rounded or
pointed. Four of the five rim sherds are check stamped,
while the surface treatment of the fifth is indeterminate
but possibly check stamped. One body sherd and one
rim sherd were tentatively cross-mended (59-014 and
59-015), and several other sherds are similar enough in
paste characteristics and surface treatment to suggest
that they originate from the same vessel.
The plain and weathered specimens exhibit greater
paste variation than the check stamped sherds and
cannot be assigned confidently to a specific ceramic
series or type. However, the decorated sherds show
strong affinity to the type WakuUa Check Stamped,
which dates to the Late Woodland Weeden Island
period in northwest Florida, ca. A.D. 750-1000. Wiliey
and Woodbury (Wiliey and Woodbury 1942:243-44;
also Wiliey 1945,1949:437-38) deflned this type, which
79
SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009
Deep Passage
8
7
N
Î
Entrance
Figure 3. Schematic plan map of 59th Unnamed Cave
showing locations within the first interior chamber of the
petroglyphs discussed in the text. A schematic map is used to
conceal the identity of the cave from those who might
recognize a detailed plan.
exhibits a hard, compact paste tempered with fine to
coarse sand and larger pieces of quartz. Fine check
stamping (1-5 mm) was lightly executed and typically
covers the entire exterior of the vessel. WakuUa Check
Stamped pottery appears in the latter portion of the
Weeden Island period and becomes the dominant type
as the frequency of complicated stamped, punctated,
and incised vessels declines in northwest Florida
(Milanich 1994:194-204, 2002:361-3).
Thus the prehistoric ceramics from 59th Unnamed
Cave can generally be described as plain or check
stamped, and while the plain specimens might hint at
earlier Woodland use of the cave, they are not
diagnostic of a specific temporal period. 59th Unnamed
Cave may have seen some earlier use, but it was most
likely visited and decorated during the Late Woodland
period.
The Petroglyphs
A total of eight individual petroglyphs were recorded in 59th Urmamed Cave. All are in the twilight zone
of the entrance chamber either on the ceiling or on
vertical wall segn:\ents along a "curtain" where the
cave narrows toward its deeper recesses (Figure 3). All
glyphs are composed of fine lines incised into the
relatively friable surface of the limestone; some are
quite eroded, and it is possible that other petroglyphs
Figure 4, Glyph 1 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. This
petroglyph is a rectangular form with interior lines: (a) raw
photograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.
were present in the cave but no longer visible today. AH
but one glyph are geometric figures; the one representational image appears to us to be a serpent. In the
passages beyond the deepest glyphs, contemporary
conditions are much wetter than at the front of the cave
near the entrance, and wet conditions have probably
characterized the cave interior for a very long time,
given the erosion of surface sediments and speleothem
formation in the deeper passages. In general, the
glyphs are scattered around the first chamber of the
cave with no evident clustering of the petroglyph
distribution. We will consider the glyphs in terms of
the numbering system plotted within Figure 3. There
is, however, no real order to the glyph numbers except
our recording sequence.
Glyph 1 (Figure 4) is a trapezoidal figure about
20 cm in its longest dimension with a number of
interior lines. It is positioned on the cave ceiling, and of
all the petroglyphs, it is closest to the cave opening.
Along one long side, a series of four line segments
extend outward from the figure's edge.
Glyph 2 (Figure 5) is also a rectilinear figure about
the same size as Glyph 1 and also on the cave ceiling. It
has two constricting curved lines inside an outer box.
FLORIDA CAVE ART
'Mm*
Figure 5. Glyph 2 from 59th Unnamed Cave, ilurid.1. This petroglyph is al.so o lecUingie lui m v\iih interior lines: (a) raw
photograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.
with a trapezoid shape crossing the interior curves. A
subrectangular piece is positioned at one end. Three
line segments, not attached to the rectangle in this case,
are positioned as a parallel series alongside the long
side of the image. As for Glj^h 1, this form, while not
representational to our eyes, is very similar to a number
of forms seen in the corpus of Southeastern cave art.
Rectilinear shapes, including filled rectangles and
trapezoids of various configurations, are a common
element in southeastern North American prehistoric
cave art as we have documented it north of the Fall
Line in the Appalachian Plateau. Glyphs 1 and 2 from
59th Unnamed Cave in Florida would not be out of
place in a number of Appalachian caves.
Glyph 3 (Figure 6) consists of a series of 18 lines
incised in groups of either two or four parallel
segments over an area on the cave wall approximately
70 X 35 cm in size. There are three groups of two and
three groups of four. The lines are short but relatively
pronounced. In fact, they resemble so-called tally
marks, often seen in Southeastern caves associated
with historic saltpeter mining operations (Figure 7).
However, these lines differ significantly from "tally
marks" in several important ways. First, there is no
evidence for saltpeter mining in 59th Unnamed Cave.
Indeed, the cave today is certainly too wet to have
served usefully for that purpose and was probably in a
similar state in historical times. Only two saltpeter
mines are known from historic records in Florida
(Smith 1995), and while neither has been relocated
today, as far as can be determined they were not near to
this cave or region of the state. Second, in her work at
Cagle Saltpetre Cave in Tennessee, Sarah Blankenship
(Blankenship 2008) has shown that tally marks were
used to count units of niter earth removed from the
mining areas for transport to leeching vats. As counting
symbols, they frequently comprise groups of five, not
the twos and fours illustrated here. In short, the 59th
Unnamed Cave lines are unlikely to be related to
historic niter mining in the cave.
Glyph 4 (Figure 8) is the only representafional
image from 59th Unnamed Cave, at least the only
one recognizable from our point of view, a figure we
interpret as a serpent. The serpent is described by a
tear drop-shaped oval with a central depression,
perhaps indicating an eye, connected to a long single
incised line defining the sinuous body; this line curves
acutely three times over an area of about 40 cm^. This
image is, admittedly, very simple in style and
execution, but it is quite in line with many such
images documented in Southeastern caves. Figure 9a
shows one of a number of serpent images from Mud
Glyph Cave (Faulkner 1986) (this one has horns); and
Figure 9b is a simple example from 1st Unnamed Cave
in Tennessee, where the snake iniages can be small
(around 20 cm in length) or quite large (over 5 m in
length). Serpents appear in caves as mud glyphs,
petroglyphs, and pictographs. We have argued elsewhere (Simek et al. in press), that serpent depictions
appear rarely in open-air rock art in the Appalachian
region but are common in dark zone cave art contexts.
It is interesting that the only representafion in this
Florida cave is of a subject associated specifically with
caves farther to the north.
81
SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009
K-:A
^.
''1 .
\-<-.i
i-igiire n. k.i}pn .1 rrom vivm unnamed Ca\'e, i-ionda. Ihis
petroglyph is a series of 18 vertical line segments in
various groupings.
Glyph 5 (Figure 10) is an area on the cave's eastern
wall that contains numerous faint lines, perhaps
geometric shapes, and groups of lines, over an area
nearly 1.0 m in width and 30 cm high. Low down on
the wall, this area is heavily eroded and difficult to
interpret. It may have at one time contained a number
of petroglyphs, but we could not distinguish any one
image from within the mass of shallow lines visible in
the area. We therefore assigned the area a single
number.
Glyphs 6, 7, and 8 are all positioned on vertical rock
faces along the curtain at the back of the vestibule
chamber. Glyph 6 (Figure 11) is a diamond-shaped
image produced by four concentric pairs of lines. There
are several more lines outside the diamond, including
three to its upper right that may have comprised or
were intended to form more elements in the image.
This cannot be verified today. This glyph is a'bout
22 cm wide.
Glyph 7 (Figure 12), located about 1.0 m from Glyph
6, is an almost identical image. A diamond is described
Figure 7.
UISKXIL
Figure 8. Glyph 4 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. We
believe that this petroglyph is a serpent effigy: (a) raw
photograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.
by concentric sets of paired lines. In this case, there are
no exterior lines associated with the image. Glyph 7 is
slightly larger than Glyph 6.
Diamonds are not common in Southeastern cave art,
although this form is known in rock art from Wisconsin
(Lowe 1996) and Illinois (Wagner 1996), nor is the
diamond characteristic of cave or rock art in the
Caribbean region, so it is curious that this is the most
common and well-defined element in 59th Unnamed
Cave. There is a grouping of diamonds painted on a
rock cliff along the Tennessee River in northern
Alabama, where they occur in an assemblage of nearly
100 pictographs. There are also concentric diamond
petroglyphs very similar to those from 59th Urmamed
Cave, in 14th Unnamed Cave, West Virginia (Figure 13). In our experience, the 14th Unnamed Cave
petroglyphs, at the extreme northern edge of the
Southeastern cave art distribution, are themselves
distinctive when compared to the images found in
the Appalachian Plateau region. In fact, the 14th
Unnamed Cave assemblage is dominated by geometric
shapes, groups of lines, and abstract forms, none of
them representational to our eyes but in nnany ways
similar to those we see in the Florida cave. Why these
saltpeter mining "tally marks" from 37th
Unnamed Cave, Tennessee. (Photo Joseph Douglas.)
82
FLORIDA CAVE ART
Figure 9. Serpent effigies from Southeastern cave art sites: (a)
horned serpent mud glyph from Mud Glyph Cave, Tennessee
(Faulkner 1986) (Photo Bill Deane); (b) serpent mud glyph
from 1st Unnamed Cave, Tennessee (Simek et al. 1997).
Figure 11. Glyph 6 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. This
petroglyph is composed of concentric diamond forms and a
few lateral line segments: (a) raw photograph; (b) engraved
lines indicated in white.
two sites, so dispersed in space, should be so similar is
not clear to us, and we will not speculate now as to an
explanation.
Glyph 8 (Figure 14) is a single deeply incised vertical
line, about 20 cm in length, with a loop at the upper
end. It is positioned on the vertical curtain at the back
of the entrance chamber. The engraving process
comprised several overlapping grooves to define and
deepen the line. This glyph is clearly of human origin
and weathered to the same extent as the other
petroglyphs, suggesting a similar age. It may represent
a second serpent effigy, although a rather simplified
version when compared to Glyph 4.
The petroglyph assemblage inside 59th Unnamed
Cave is, admittedly, rather simple and obscure.
However, the weathered condition of the images
especially compared to the freshness of nineteenthcentury graffiti on the same walls (Figure 15), and
similarity to images present in prehistoric cave art
found farther north, all indicate considerable antiquity.
The archaeological record in the cave indicates cave use
during the Late Woodland period, an era that saw
increasing cave art production in Tennessee that
culminated in numerous and diverse Mississippian
period ritual cave art sites.
Summary and Conclusions
Figure 10. Glyph 5 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. This
petroglyph comprises a number of lines and shapes that are
heavily eroded and may, at one time, have included a number
59th Unnamed Cave represents the first probable
of individual images not visible today.
prehistoric cave art site identified in Florida, indeed
B3
SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009
^
J3
i'-'
'-''^JL. ~~ ï t
*
'-' í*"^
'.
•
'
'r
'
'JÍ
. i-- '
'''li^
'*'' /. ^'''7'
Figure 12. Glyph 7 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. Like Glyph 6, this petroglyph is of concentric diamond shapes: (a) raw
photograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.
south of the Fall Line. It immediately doubles the
number of known rock-art localities in Florida and
provides encouragement that other similar sites remain
to be discovered in the limestone karst features of the
state. While it is nearly impossible to confirm a
prehistoric attribution, it seems most likely to us that
the art is prehistoric given the assemblage's nature,
context and condition.
This is an exciting development in the ongoing
discovery of American cave art. The location of 59th
Unnamed Cave extends the known geographical range
Figure 13. Concentric diamund petroglyph from 14th Unnamed Cave, West Virginia. This image shares lateral line
segments with the 59th Unnamed Cave Glyphs 6 and 7.
Unlike the Florida images, this one has a central cross inside
the diamond configuration.
of cave art sites into the karst regions of the Florida
Panhandle, far south of the Appalachian Plateau,
where the majority of known sites are located. We
suspect that this find indicates (as we have argued
elsewhere) that prehistoric peoples in the Southeast
made cave art wherever caves were available to do so
(Simek 2008; Simek and Cressler 2005). It is true that a
geographic gap is evident between cave art in the
upper South and this new find in Florida, but we
suggest that the gap is more apparent than real. That
cave art was previously unknown south of the
Appalachian region is probably due to several causes.
First, the absolute number of caves south of the Plateau,
Ridge and Valley, and Highland Rim provinces is
much smaller when compared to the Appalachian
Plateau itself. Thus there are fewer caves in which to
make cave art. This is true in Florida, but even more so
in south Georgia and south Alabama. Second, archaeologists have examined very few of those caves that do
exist between the Plateau and the Gulf of Mexico for
the presence of ancient rock art. This is likely because
the potential for cave art has not been recognized or
appreciated by regional scholars. Third, the limestones
that characterize karst formation south of the Appalachian Plateau are often quite poorly cemented and
friable, providing poor preservation context for ancient
petroglyphs. The Marianna limestone in 59th Unnamed
Cave is a good example of this, and, as we have noted,
even in this cave art site preservation of engravings
may not be all that good. Thus there may have been
FLORIDA CAVE ART
Figure 14. Glyph 8 from 59th Unnamed Cave, Florida. This petroglyph comprises a vertically oriented line segment with a loop
at the upper end. It may represent a second serpent effigy: (a) raw photograph; (b) engraved lines indicated in white.
more cave art sites in the lower South that are no longer
visible today. Still, we suspect that more cave art sites
will be discovered as the region's caves are surveyed
with this possibility in mind.
We are convinced that cave art production was a
central component of very widespread prehistoric
cultural traditions in southeastern North America and
that prehistoric ceremonial landscapes in the Gulf
Coastal Plain, including Florida, as elsewhere in the
Southeast, integrated the world underground (Simek
2008). The cave art in 59th Unnamed Cave supports
that conviction. We encourage archaeologists in the
region to examine caves for these remarkable prehistoric resources.
Note
Acknowledgments. The authors thank the owners of 59th
Unnamed Cave for allowing us to study the site. They will
remain anonymous here to protect the site's location. We are
also grateful to David G. Anderson for his help with the
artifacts. Carol Diaz-G rana dos, lim Knight, Bill Marquardt,
and a fourth anonymous reviewer for Southeastern Archaeology
made great suggestions for improvement of this report.
References Cited
Blankenship, S. A.
2008 Cagle Saltpeter Cave in Van Buren County, Tennessee:
The Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Saltpeter Caves
in the Midsouth. In Cave Archaeology in the Eastern
Woodlands: Essays in Honor of Patty ¡o Watson, edited by
D. Dye, pp. 219-34. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Boszhardt, R. F.
2003
Deep Cave Rock Art in the Upper Mississippi Valley.
Prairie Smoke Press, St. Paul, MN.
Bullen, R. P.
1949 Indian Sites at Florida Caverns State Park. Florida
Anthropologist 2(l-2):l-9.
1966 Stelae at the Crystal River Site, Florida. Ameriean
A7itiquity 31(6):861-65.
l-igiM"i' IT. rii^torii.' ininetL'L'nth-century) sígn¿itiire trom the
wall of 59th Unnamed Cave in Florida. Note how fresh the
edges of the incised lines are in this engraving compared to
the glyphs depicted above. This signature is positioned just
ahove Glyph 5 (Figure 10) on the same wall.
85
SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009
Bullen, R. P., and C. A. Benson
In press New Gave and Rock Art Sites in Tennessee: 2007, In
Special Issue of Tennessee Anthropologist: Papers in Honor of
1964 Dixie Lime Caves Numbers 1 and 2: A Preliminary
Gharles H. Faulkner, edited by T. Baumann and M.
Report, Florida Anthropologist 17(3):153-65.
Clausen, C, J., A, D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J.
Groover, Nashville.
Stipp
Simek, J, F., and A, Cressler
1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. 2001 Issues in the Study of Prehistoric Southeastern Cave
Science 203(4381):609-14,
Art. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26(2):233-50.
Diaz-Granados, C , and J. R. Duncan
2005 Images in Darkness: Prehistoric Cave Art in South2000 The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri. University
eastern North America. In Discovering North American
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Rock Art, edited by L. Loendorf, C. Chippendale, and D.
Fairbanks, C. H,
Whitley, pp. 93-113. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1941 Report of Collections from Florida Caverns State Simek, J. F., A. Cresster, S. C, Sherwood, and N, Herrmann
Park, Marianna, Florida, Florida Bureau of Archives, 2000 Cave Art in West Virginia, Cave Archaeology SympoTallahassee.
sium presented at the National Speleological Society
Faulkner, C. H,, ed.
Annual Meeting, Elkins, WV, June.
1986 The Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Cave. Simek, J. F,, C. H. Faulkner, S. R. Frankenberg, W. E. KHppel,
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
T, M. Ahlman, N, P. Herrmann, S. C. Sherwood, R, B.
Huddlestun, P. F.
Walker, W. M. Wright, and R. Yarnell
1993 A Revision of the Lithostratigraphic Units of the 1997 A Preliminary Report on the Archaeology of a New
Coastal Piain of Georgia-The Oligocène. Georgia GeologMississippian Cave Art Site in East Tennessee. Southeastical Survey Bulletin 105:1-152.
ern Archaeology 16(l):51-73.
Lowe, D. C.
Simpson, J. C.
1996 Ancient Images of Wisconsin. In Rock Art of the Eastern
1941 A Report of an Archeological Investigation at Florida
Woodlands, edited by C. H. Faulkner, pp. 39-46. American
Caverns State Park, Marianna, Florida. Florida Bureau of
Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, CA.
Archives, Tallahassee.
Meloy, H.
Smith, M. O.
1984 Mummies of Mammoth Gave. Micron Publishing, Shel1995 Confederate Nitre Bureau Operations in Florida.
byville, IN,
Florida Historical Quarterhj 70:40-46.
Mercer, H. C.
Wagner,
M, J.
1897 The Finding of the Remains of Fossil Sloth at Big Bone
1996
Written
in Stone; an Overview of the Rock Art of
Cave, Tennessee, in 1896. Proceedings of the American
Illinois.
In
Rock
Art of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.
Philosophical Soeiety 36:36-70.
H.
Faulkner,
pp.
47-79. American Rock Art Research
Milanich, J. T.
Association, San Miguel, CA.
1994 Archeology of Precolumhian Florida. University Press of
Watson, P. J.
Florida, Gainsville.
2002 Weeden Island Cultures, In The Woodland Southeast, 1969 The Prehistory of Salts Gave, Kentucky. Illinois State
Museum, Springfield.
edited by D. G. Anderson and R. C. Mainfort, pp. 352-72.
1986 Prehistoric Cavers of the Eastern Woodlands. In The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Gave, edited
Miller, P. M.
by C. H. Faulkner, pp. 109-16. University of Tennessee
1812 Preservation of Human Bodies in a Cave, in Tennessee:
Press, Knoxville,
In a Letter from Pleasant M. Miller, Fsq. of Knoxville,
Watson, P. J-, ed.
Dated May 1st, 1811, Medical Repository 3(3):147-149.
1974 Archaeology of the Mammoth Gave Area. Academic Press,
Simek, J, F.
New York.
1998 Prehistoric Use of Caves, In Teiuwssee Encyclopedia of
Histori/ and Culture, edited by C. Van West, pp, 749-50. Willey, G. R.
1945 The Weeden Island Culture: A Preliminary Definition.
Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville, TN.
American Antit^uity 10(3):225-254.
2008 Afterward: Onward Into the Darkness (Still Following
the Light of Pat Watson's Lamp, of Course). In Gave 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Goast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collecrions No. 113. Smithsonian InstituArchaeologi/ in the Eastern Woodlands: Essays in Honor of
Patty }o Watson, edited by D. Dye, pp. 261-70. University
tion, Washington, DC.
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Willey, G. R., and R. B. Woodbury
Simek, J. F., S. Blankenship, N. Herrmann, S. C. Sherwood, 1942 A Chronological Outline for the Northwest Florida
and A. Cressler
Coast. American Antiquity 7(3):232-254.
86